Originally Posted by Michael1

That argument really bores me. If John, Jane and Mary consent there is no legitimate state interest. They all consented which should be a requirement for multiples.

There is a HUGE problem with EQUAL DISTRIBUTION of benefits.

Until recently procreation has always been the implied point of marriage.

Implied? Because you thought so? There is NOTHING on an application for a wedding license that even asks if you're capable/desirous/intending to procreate, let alone a requirement. There is nothing about procreation on the actual license. There is nothing whatsoever in any wedding vows that I have ever witnessed that even came close to mentioning procreation. Though, it's true, gay couples cannot procreate together, neither can sterile and/or barren straight couples. If benefts are given to PARENTS, that's a different issue. But the benefits are given to the COUPLE.

There's nothing, in most states, that prevents homosexuals from having children. I know plenty of them that do.